What do you think?
Rate this book
Chronology #1
History: Fiction or Science?
Recorded history is a finely-woven magic fabric of intricate lies about events predating the sixteenth century. There is not a single piece of evidence that can be reliably and independently traced back earlier than the eleventh century. This book details events that are substantiated by hard facts and logic, and validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources.
624 pages, Paperback
Published March 1, 2004
17 people are currently reading
235 people want to read
About the author
A.T. Fomenko
61 books21 followersAnatoly Timofeevich Fomenko is a full Member (Academician) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Full Member of the International Higher Education Academy of Sciences,Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, Professor, Head of the Moscow State University Section of Mathematics of the Department of Mathematics and Mechanics.Solved Plateau's Problem from the theory of minimal spectral surfaces. Author of the theory of invariants and topological classification of integrable Hamiltonian dynamic systems.
Author of 200 scientific publications, 28 monographs and textbooks on mathematics, a specialist in geometry and topology, calculus of variations, symplectic topology, Hamiltonian geometry and mechanics, computer geometry.
Author of a number of books on the development of new empirico-statistical methods and their application to the analysis of historical chronicles as well as the chornology of antiquity and the Middle Ages.
Many Russian scientists do not accept the "New Chronology" declaring it pseudoscientific, yet no mathematical calculations on which the New Chronology is based have been proved wrong. The supporters of the New Chronology include Garry Kasparov, a former chess champion, whom many consider the greatest chess player of all time.
Author of 200 scientific publications, 28 monographs and textbooks on mathematics, a specialist in geometry and topology, calculus of variations, symplectic topology, Hamiltonian geometry and mechanics, computer geometry.
Author of a number of books on the development of new empirico-statistical methods and their application to the analysis of historical chronicles as well as the chornology of antiquity and the Middle Ages.
Many Russian scientists do not accept the "New Chronology" declaring it pseudoscientific, yet no mathematical calculations on which the New Chronology is based have been proved wrong. The supporters of the New Chronology include Garry Kasparov, a former chess champion, whom many consider the greatest chess player of all time.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
May 11, 2022
This book is a piss-poor example of Russian nationalist conspiracy theories masquerading as science, or in this case history. Before we go down the rabbit hole I thought I'd provide a few basic facts: Anatoly Fomenko is a Doctor of Mathematics at Moscow State University. Despite a lack of support from his colleagues (who consider his ideas on history nuts) he published a series of seven books in which he rewrote the history of the world based on his ideas of Statistics. As explained on the back cover, "Jesus Christ was born in 1053 A.D. and crucified in 1086 A.D. The Old Testament refers to mediaeval events. Apocalypse was written after 1486 A.D." I'll go more into why he thinks that makes sense later. The Roman Empire and all of Classical civilization was invented by Jesuit monks who wrote in a remarkably short time all of Western literature and invented an entire civilization which people then immediately forgot never existed. All Classical buildings are simply medieval ones that have been misdated.
A brief history of... well history, as seen through Fomenko-vision: History begins when Andronicos Comnenos dies and becomes Jesus. History records him as an unsuccessful Greek emperor who was beaten to death by the mob and not a poor prophet from Nazareth who was crucified but hey, what do they know? It's not like the crucifixion was an important part of the story or anything! Immediately all of Europe decides that they're Christian and march against the Muslims. It may sound confusing why they'd blame the Muslims for what was an internal coup but they were probably just confused because Mohammed wasn't born yet. At some point they changed their minds and decided to skip the first three crusades and jump straight onto the Fourth (except that they didn't, it was actually the same as the First. Obviously. Please try and keep up). They then sacked Constantinople which was also Rome which was Troy which was Jerusalem. At some point they get confused and occupied the Holy Land as well and then forget all about Constantinople and let it fall back to the Greeks since Jerusalem was now Constantinople which was Troy which was Rome. During the First Crusade the Greeks decide to avenge the kidnapping of their queen by... also sacking Constantinople. After sacking their own city they quietly vanish for a few years, probably in embarrassment. Some time later Erasmus wrote the New Testament confusing generations of scholars who wondered what they had been copying out for all that time. Having now written a New Testament it was decided that they needed an Old one. I'm sure the reasons for the reversed order are as obvious to everyone else as they are to Fomenko. Some time in the 15th Century David rose up, except that he was Turkish and ruled in Constantinople. Despite the many wars with the Turks Europe had never warred with the Turks and accepted all of these events as holy writ. After all, the Turks were really Russian in funny hats and the Russians ruled the world. The Byzantines were secretly ruling in England. After the death of Solomon (Suleimon) the Jews split off from Christianity because they were tired of not being persecuted because of something they didn't do and decided that being hunted by the Inquisition was more fun. In the confusion the Catholics and Orthodox Christians split apart as well because everyone else was doing it and it seemed a good idea at the time. They were to regret this later when the Catholics sacked their city but that had already happened so it was fine.
It turns out that Russia has dominated the world since the earliest recorded history (what nationality was Fomenko again?). The Mongols were not from Mongolia because the people there are nothing but worthless servants of the Russian Empire (it's ok, Fomenko assures us that the Mongols never knew of Genghis Khan until some pesky monks told them). Russia was actually the major Empire that the Romans were based off of and have existed since the dawn of civilization. Silly Ukrainians thinking they are anything but the personal property of Russia! Ha ha. They also controlled America, Europe and North Africa by 1300 so I guess that we should all submit to the Russian yoke as is our hereditary duty. Occasionally a tsar would allow the governors of Europe (kings hah!) to wage war on each other if they pleased him. Presumably the English sucked up to him better than France which is why they did so well in the Hundred Years War but then lost his favor again which resulted in the French winning. Joan of Arc was probably the tsar’s sister or something. The tsar could summon anyone to his court and they had to obey which is why Moscow is renowned the world over as being filled with better artwork and architecture than such dives as Paris and Rome (which isn't the REAL Rome after all). After Russia fell in the 1600s (through internal troubles. No one could EVER conquer Russians) the rest of the world immediately conspired to hide that they ever existed lest they should try to rule over them again. Thus they erased this empire from the history books and replaced it with such lies as Rome and the Holy Roman Empire (couldn't they even pick a new name? Obvious!). Thus the treacherous Romanovs rose to power (did I mention that he first published this under the Soviets?) and they too decided to forget there had ever been a Russian Empire of such a scale. Many "Roman" documents are simply Russian ones with a few name changes. Latin is merely corrupted church Slavonic despite belonging to an entirely different branch of the language family. The Russians probably invented it to confuse future generations of schoolkids. They had after all had it engraved all over the southern part of their empire on specific styles of buildings which they immediately buried and built medieval cities on top of to confuse archaeologists. It never showed up in Russia itself. Perhaps they punished the provinces by making them write everything in Latin. Oh those cruel Russians. After the late 18th Century things begin to return to what is normally called history.
As you can see it is far less confusing than the 'conventional' timeline. You might think I'm making this up but that is what you get when you put all his history together. Minus the sarcasm perhaps.
It seems best to explain why he is wrong about the facts he lists before going into the facts that he's ignoring. First off comes a good example of how he combines Classical and Medieval history together. To him the First Crusade and the Trojan War are the same event. One of Fomenko's favorite tools, a chart, might demonstrate why this is.
As you can clearly see there is a great deal there fully justifying the combination of these two events as the same war. How could it not be?...
Clearly this idea is nuts and fails on any comparative level. There are almost no similarities between the two events except that they were both famous. To combine the two would require removing all facts except for the sieges. If you discard all that then there is nothing left.
His arguments for this are all mathematical and rely on eclipse records and other such information as well as a statistical analysis so vague that multiple mentions of sieges mean they must be the same one. By that reasoning my name is Stuart therefore I must be a king since previous Stuarts were kings of England. QED. Can I have my crown please? A key fact of mathematics is that garbage in=garbage out. He may have done all his calculations correctly, but if he feeds in the wrong data or assumptions then he'll still get worthless data back. By selecting only those sections of chronology which match his conclusions and ignoring those that don't he violates a key rule of statistics. My Statistics I teacher taught me that. But it's worse than that because even these cherry-picked sections aren't enough to work without some cheating.
Let's look at the comparison between the ancient kings of Rome with a list of Emperors from the later Empire (p.305). This shows his fudging at its worst although people who've never studied it might not know it. It looks reasonable at first glance. Kings of Ancient Rome: Romulus Quirin, Numa Pompilius, Tuttus Hostilius, Ancus Marcius, Tarquin the Ancient, Servius Tullius, Tarquin the Proud lasted in total 244 years. In the later Empire Constantine I, Basileos the Great/Asa, Valentinian I, Honorius, Aecius, Valentinian III, Recimer, Odoacer, Theodorich, The Goths last 252 years. The first thing that any Classicist will note is that those are not the correct English transliterations of their names. The translator didn't even try to get them right. Basileos the Great is St. Basil despite never being called "Basileos" or "the Great" in English. I have no idea who Asa is supposed to be.
Problems: First, the ancient kings are fake. Probably made up by Roman mythologists. Certainly they didn't know the exact dates when they ruled. So he's comparing a fictitious dynasty with a factual one. He'd undoubtedly say they're both fictitious but this chart was supposed to prove that and it doesn't. Moving on to the real Emperors. St. Basil wasn't an emperor, he was a bishop and theologian. He has no place on this chart. Fomenko has skipped over Constantius, Constantine II, Constans, Julian, Jovian, Valentinian I, Valens, Gratian, Thodosius, and Valentinian II, unless one of them is Asa. So one king ruling 43 years has become 11, including Valentinian I who shows up next on the list after he's been dead for about 5 years.
He is followed by Honorius who actually shows up at the right time for once but they do neglect to mention that the Empire has been split in two by this point and thus there are two Emperors whom he can chose from to fit his chart. Apparently that's not enough because the next man is... Aecius? If this means Aetius then he wasn't an emperor but Valentinian III's chief general. Oh, and Valentinian III's listed separately next. Even someone who's never read anything about the Later Empire should note that Fomenko jumped straight from Valentinian I to III. Aetius in fact lasted a further ten years, being killed by Valentinian III in 454 a few months before that emperor was assassinated. He only lists him as dying in 444 because that way he matches with Ancus Marcius giving him a 'reign' of 21 years.
Following Valentinian III comes what is definitely supposed to be Ricimir. He was also not an Emperor but a general. There were nine Emperors during this time (in the West) and then the Western Empire fell. Ricimer was already dead by that point. Bravely tossing logic aside, Fomenko continues with the first of the Gothic kings. Finally he's met another section that matches with his list! Odoacer and Theodoric last 50 years to Servius Tullius' 44 (according to Fomenko). At this point he just gives up and the next king is "the Goths." Huh. Well that's nice. As you can see, despite his neat graph he's made up most of his dates and skipped over dozens of Emperors. The only ones that actually fit are Constantine I (the first one on the list) and Odoacer/Theodorich who were kinda two different people and not the same one like Servius Tullius. Even the bits that do match don't do so exactly and to have any significance it would have to match exactly. It's like saying that 2+2=5 because 2 is approximately 3. The average reign for an emperor was nine years (look it up) which means that even a few years difference is a major deal statistically. That, by the way, is a valid and important use of statistics in historical studies.
The invented charts are actually the strongest evidence he provides. Most of the other attempts to erase history are completely nonsensical. Since dates do show up in documents from time to time he needs to come up with a way to discredit every writer who's ever lived and I have to admit he has a highly original way of doing so. Without offering any proof he asserts that Roman Numerals didn't have a number for ten. X stood for ten in Roman numerals but Fomenko believes that they only had I's and V's since X stood for Christ (p. 337). Χ was the first letter of Christos in Greek (The Greek Χ is a Ch sound) and therefore they put it in there to indicate that it was the 1st Century of the Christian era. It makes me wonder how a 12 (XII) year old boy can really be a 200 year old man but I'm sure that the mathematician knows what he's doing.
1 is also fictitious. As a Russian who doesn't use the Latin alphabet 1, I, J, and l look much the same to Fomenko and as he does with all things that look the same he combines them. 1 was not actually a number but the letter I (or J) and stood for Jesus (Iesus in Latin). So the year 1300 is actually the year 300 after Jesus. As proof of this he includes a picture of a tombstone in Britain with what he claims is a J for a 1. Sure it is Dr. Fomenko. Sure it is. As you might imagine he gives no evidence apart from the similarity of appearance and treats his idle and unsupported speculation with the same weight as solid fact.
He also views anno domini (AD) as being misunderstood (p. 351). While even a little Latin will tell you that it means 'in the year of the lord' Fomenko has an alternate translation. Since 'dom' means house in Russian he assumes that it means the same thing in Latin. Thus anno domini would mean 'in the year of the (ruling) house' and would refer to the current ruler and not Jesus making it impossible to determine dates from AD. While the abbreviation (but not the full word) can be made to work in Latin (anno domi) it says it all that he doesn't even attempt to look beyond Russian, which is the originator of all things.
Anyways, this makes dating from the dates included in documents impossible which is certainly convenient for him isn't it? Of course all of this makes it hard to explain the many medieval Universal Histories that went from the Creation to the present and used BC and AD in exactly the same way they do now. I love the idea that Bede was actually living in the 18th Century describing the goings on of the Stuarts and Hanovers as if they were a dozen petty feuding monarchs in an only-recently Christianized land. I'm also fascinated by how many rulers had reigns in the thousands of years. Guess people just lived longer back then.
Having shown what utter rot his selective use of facts is it's time to turn to the facts that he doesn't want people to know. Starting with documents. While he's right in saying we rely on medieval copies for our key sources, he doesn't even attempt to explain how we find parchments in Classical Greek and Latin from ancient dumps across the Mediterranean. By his explanation, all Roman civilization was created by busy Jesuits in the 16th century yet we can find documents from Vindoland in Britain and Oxyrhynchus in Egypt discussing exactly these sources. How did the Jesuits know modern technology would allow us to read them? And how did they have access to Muslim Egypt and Protestant England anyway? And furthermore, what would be the point? Why create all of this useless information only to bury it forever in a place where it should have rotted away?
Fomenko's contempt for any field that isn't math or physics is overwhelming. His sections on architecture are masterpieces of arrogant disdain. For example he considers the Parthenon to be a Turkish mosque. The Parthenon is of course a masterpiece of Classical architecture and is lacking the traditional Muslim mosque design. Particularly the dome. Yes the roof was blown off, but they can still tell the structure of the thing from what remained. And what remains is remarkably similar to other temples traditionally labeled as Classical. I'm not kidding when I say he makes this claim based on no evidence either. His logic is that the Ancient Greeks never existed therefore this building cannot be Greek. He says that there was a Turkish tower on the Acropolis and therefore it must have been built there at the same time. His rather poor photo from the 1860s shows the tower right next to the temple of Athena Nike and it seems to be constructed of similar material to what is underneath it. By his reasoning this alone is enough to conclude that it was originally there when the temple was constructed.
His conclusion ignores the similarity of design between classical buildings and assumes that they are all more modern. The fact that there are buildings of similar design and function located throughout Europe is ignored. Why these buildings were all built, covered in Roman inscriptions, and then abandoned is left as something of a mystery. Or it would be if he mentioned it. Also missing is a discussion of artifacts and how some artifacts are found throughout the Mediterranean despite the highly different cultures that exist there. Why do Turkish buildings and artwork differ so much from Italian buildings and artwork if they were all the same a few hundred years ago when they built Classcal temples? And for that matter, why were they the same? Roman armor is especially strange since the only conclusion possible from his 'theory' is that everyone around the Mediterranean adopted Roman armor, sculpted and painted it (but only on Classically styled buildings), and then abandoned it without it ever having an effect on medieval armor and weaponry. This entire section is a blatant insult to the reader's intelligence and his own. And it gets worse.
When mentioning the dating of buildings he neglects to explain the layering. Specifically how one building is often built upon another. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the building on top is the newer building. Yet he would have us discard such obvious facts. Because when Classical buildings are found in a medieval city they are INVARIABLY found on the bottom. That's right, all those Classical buildings being built at the same time as medieval ones somehow all ended up on the bottom while their contemporaneous medieval ones ended up above them. Gosh, isn't that surprising?
And this is all in only book one. Of a dozen. Oh boy...
A brief history of... well history, as seen through Fomenko-vision: History begins when Andronicos Comnenos dies and becomes Jesus. History records him as an unsuccessful Greek emperor who was beaten to death by the mob and not a poor prophet from Nazareth who was crucified but hey, what do they know? It's not like the crucifixion was an important part of the story or anything! Immediately all of Europe decides that they're Christian and march against the Muslims. It may sound confusing why they'd blame the Muslims for what was an internal coup but they were probably just confused because Mohammed wasn't born yet. At some point they changed their minds and decided to skip the first three crusades and jump straight onto the Fourth (except that they didn't, it was actually the same as the First. Obviously. Please try and keep up). They then sacked Constantinople which was also Rome which was Troy which was Jerusalem. At some point they get confused and occupied the Holy Land as well and then forget all about Constantinople and let it fall back to the Greeks since Jerusalem was now Constantinople which was Troy which was Rome. During the First Crusade the Greeks decide to avenge the kidnapping of their queen by... also sacking Constantinople. After sacking their own city they quietly vanish for a few years, probably in embarrassment. Some time later Erasmus wrote the New Testament confusing generations of scholars who wondered what they had been copying out for all that time. Having now written a New Testament it was decided that they needed an Old one. I'm sure the reasons for the reversed order are as obvious to everyone else as they are to Fomenko. Some time in the 15th Century David rose up, except that he was Turkish and ruled in Constantinople. Despite the many wars with the Turks Europe had never warred with the Turks and accepted all of these events as holy writ. After all, the Turks were really Russian in funny hats and the Russians ruled the world. The Byzantines were secretly ruling in England. After the death of Solomon (Suleimon) the Jews split off from Christianity because they were tired of not being persecuted because of something they didn't do and decided that being hunted by the Inquisition was more fun. In the confusion the Catholics and Orthodox Christians split apart as well because everyone else was doing it and it seemed a good idea at the time. They were to regret this later when the Catholics sacked their city but that had already happened so it was fine.
It turns out that Russia has dominated the world since the earliest recorded history (what nationality was Fomenko again?). The Mongols were not from Mongolia because the people there are nothing but worthless servants of the Russian Empire (it's ok, Fomenko assures us that the Mongols never knew of Genghis Khan until some pesky monks told them). Russia was actually the major Empire that the Romans were based off of and have existed since the dawn of civilization. Silly Ukrainians thinking they are anything but the personal property of Russia! Ha ha. They also controlled America, Europe and North Africa by 1300 so I guess that we should all submit to the Russian yoke as is our hereditary duty. Occasionally a tsar would allow the governors of Europe (kings hah!) to wage war on each other if they pleased him. Presumably the English sucked up to him better than France which is why they did so well in the Hundred Years War but then lost his favor again which resulted in the French winning. Joan of Arc was probably the tsar’s sister or something. The tsar could summon anyone to his court and they had to obey which is why Moscow is renowned the world over as being filled with better artwork and architecture than such dives as Paris and Rome (which isn't the REAL Rome after all). After Russia fell in the 1600s (through internal troubles. No one could EVER conquer Russians) the rest of the world immediately conspired to hide that they ever existed lest they should try to rule over them again. Thus they erased this empire from the history books and replaced it with such lies as Rome and the Holy Roman Empire (couldn't they even pick a new name? Obvious!). Thus the treacherous Romanovs rose to power (did I mention that he first published this under the Soviets?) and they too decided to forget there had ever been a Russian Empire of such a scale. Many "Roman" documents are simply Russian ones with a few name changes. Latin is merely corrupted church Slavonic despite belonging to an entirely different branch of the language family. The Russians probably invented it to confuse future generations of schoolkids. They had after all had it engraved all over the southern part of their empire on specific styles of buildings which they immediately buried and built medieval cities on top of to confuse archaeologists. It never showed up in Russia itself. Perhaps they punished the provinces by making them write everything in Latin. Oh those cruel Russians. After the late 18th Century things begin to return to what is normally called history.
As you can see it is far less confusing than the 'conventional' timeline. You might think I'm making this up but that is what you get when you put all his history together. Minus the sarcasm perhaps.
It seems best to explain why he is wrong about the facts he lists before going into the facts that he's ignoring. First off comes a good example of how he combines Classical and Medieval history together. To him the First Crusade and the Trojan War are the same event. One of Fomenko's favorite tools, a chart, might demonstrate why this is.
Simularities:
First Crusade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| Trojan War
A war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| A war
Sieges involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| All about a siege
East vs. West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| East vs. West
Um, took place on the planet earth . . . . . . . . . . .| Probably the same if it happened at all...
The differences:
First Crusade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| Trojan War
Lead by Bohemund, Raymond, Geoffrey, etc. . . . ..| Led by Agamemnon, Achilles, Odysseus, etc. (No matching names)
Fought for religious reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| Fought for political/personal reasons
Traveled by land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| Traveled by sea
Leaders fought on horseback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| Leaders arrived on chariots, fought on foot
Weapons: lances, spears, iron swords, chain mail ..| Weapons: spears, bronze swords, bronze greaves
All participants monotheist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| All participants polytheist
Came from all over Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| Came from Greece
Lasted three years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| Lasted ten years
Went to recover city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| Went to destroy city and recover wife
Set up a kingdom on enemy land . . . . . . . . . . . . .| Immediately returned home
Leaders became kings and lords of new land . . . . ..| Leaders offend the gods and are punished
Archaeology confirms presence in Israel . . . . . . . ..| Archaeology confirms presence in Greece
Mentioned the Trojan War in documents . . . . . . . .| Was the Trojan War...
As you can clearly see there is a great deal there fully justifying the combination of these two events as the same war. How could it not be?...
Clearly this idea is nuts and fails on any comparative level. There are almost no similarities between the two events except that they were both famous. To combine the two would require removing all facts except for the sieges. If you discard all that then there is nothing left.
His arguments for this are all mathematical and rely on eclipse records and other such information as well as a statistical analysis so vague that multiple mentions of sieges mean they must be the same one. By that reasoning my name is Stuart therefore I must be a king since previous Stuarts were kings of England. QED. Can I have my crown please? A key fact of mathematics is that garbage in=garbage out. He may have done all his calculations correctly, but if he feeds in the wrong data or assumptions then he'll still get worthless data back. By selecting only those sections of chronology which match his conclusions and ignoring those that don't he violates a key rule of statistics. My Statistics I teacher taught me that. But it's worse than that because even these cherry-picked sections aren't enough to work without some cheating.
Let's look at the comparison between the ancient kings of Rome with a list of Emperors from the later Empire (p.305). This shows his fudging at its worst although people who've never studied it might not know it. It looks reasonable at first glance. Kings of Ancient Rome: Romulus Quirin, Numa Pompilius, Tuttus Hostilius, Ancus Marcius, Tarquin the Ancient, Servius Tullius, Tarquin the Proud lasted in total 244 years. In the later Empire Constantine I, Basileos the Great/Asa, Valentinian I, Honorius, Aecius, Valentinian III, Recimer, Odoacer, Theodorich, The Goths last 252 years. The first thing that any Classicist will note is that those are not the correct English transliterations of their names. The translator didn't even try to get them right. Basileos the Great is St. Basil despite never being called "Basileos" or "the Great" in English. I have no idea who Asa is supposed to be.
Problems: First, the ancient kings are fake. Probably made up by Roman mythologists. Certainly they didn't know the exact dates when they ruled. So he's comparing a fictitious dynasty with a factual one. He'd undoubtedly say they're both fictitious but this chart was supposed to prove that and it doesn't. Moving on to the real Emperors. St. Basil wasn't an emperor, he was a bishop and theologian. He has no place on this chart. Fomenko has skipped over Constantius, Constantine II, Constans, Julian, Jovian, Valentinian I, Valens, Gratian, Thodosius, and Valentinian II, unless one of them is Asa. So one king ruling 43 years has become 11, including Valentinian I who shows up next on the list after he's been dead for about 5 years.
He is followed by Honorius who actually shows up at the right time for once but they do neglect to mention that the Empire has been split in two by this point and thus there are two Emperors whom he can chose from to fit his chart. Apparently that's not enough because the next man is... Aecius? If this means Aetius then he wasn't an emperor but Valentinian III's chief general. Oh, and Valentinian III's listed separately next. Even someone who's never read anything about the Later Empire should note that Fomenko jumped straight from Valentinian I to III. Aetius in fact lasted a further ten years, being killed by Valentinian III in 454 a few months before that emperor was assassinated. He only lists him as dying in 444 because that way he matches with Ancus Marcius giving him a 'reign' of 21 years.
Following Valentinian III comes what is definitely supposed to be Ricimir. He was also not an Emperor but a general. There were nine Emperors during this time (in the West) and then the Western Empire fell. Ricimer was already dead by that point. Bravely tossing logic aside, Fomenko continues with the first of the Gothic kings. Finally he's met another section that matches with his list! Odoacer and Theodoric last 50 years to Servius Tullius' 44 (according to Fomenko). At this point he just gives up and the next king is "the Goths." Huh. Well that's nice. As you can see, despite his neat graph he's made up most of his dates and skipped over dozens of Emperors. The only ones that actually fit are Constantine I (the first one on the list) and Odoacer/Theodorich who were kinda two different people and not the same one like Servius Tullius. Even the bits that do match don't do so exactly and to have any significance it would have to match exactly. It's like saying that 2+2=5 because 2 is approximately 3. The average reign for an emperor was nine years (look it up) which means that even a few years difference is a major deal statistically. That, by the way, is a valid and important use of statistics in historical studies.
The invented charts are actually the strongest evidence he provides. Most of the other attempts to erase history are completely nonsensical. Since dates do show up in documents from time to time he needs to come up with a way to discredit every writer who's ever lived and I have to admit he has a highly original way of doing so. Without offering any proof he asserts that Roman Numerals didn't have a number for ten. X stood for ten in Roman numerals but Fomenko believes that they only had I's and V's since X stood for Christ (p. 337). Χ was the first letter of Christos in Greek (The Greek Χ is a Ch sound) and therefore they put it in there to indicate that it was the 1st Century of the Christian era. It makes me wonder how a 12 (XII) year old boy can really be a 200 year old man but I'm sure that the mathematician knows what he's doing.
1 is also fictitious. As a Russian who doesn't use the Latin alphabet 1, I, J, and l look much the same to Fomenko and as he does with all things that look the same he combines them. 1 was not actually a number but the letter I (or J) and stood for Jesus (Iesus in Latin). So the year 1300 is actually the year 300 after Jesus. As proof of this he includes a picture of a tombstone in Britain with what he claims is a J for a 1. Sure it is Dr. Fomenko. Sure it is. As you might imagine he gives no evidence apart from the similarity of appearance and treats his idle and unsupported speculation with the same weight as solid fact.
He also views anno domini (AD) as being misunderstood (p. 351). While even a little Latin will tell you that it means 'in the year of the lord' Fomenko has an alternate translation. Since 'dom' means house in Russian he assumes that it means the same thing in Latin. Thus anno domini would mean 'in the year of the (ruling) house' and would refer to the current ruler and not Jesus making it impossible to determine dates from AD. While the abbreviation (but not the full word) can be made to work in Latin (anno domi) it says it all that he doesn't even attempt to look beyond Russian, which is the originator of all things.
Anyways, this makes dating from the dates included in documents impossible which is certainly convenient for him isn't it? Of course all of this makes it hard to explain the many medieval Universal Histories that went from the Creation to the present and used BC and AD in exactly the same way they do now. I love the idea that Bede was actually living in the 18th Century describing the goings on of the Stuarts and Hanovers as if they were a dozen petty feuding monarchs in an only-recently Christianized land. I'm also fascinated by how many rulers had reigns in the thousands of years. Guess people just lived longer back then.
Having shown what utter rot his selective use of facts is it's time to turn to the facts that he doesn't want people to know. Starting with documents. While he's right in saying we rely on medieval copies for our key sources, he doesn't even attempt to explain how we find parchments in Classical Greek and Latin from ancient dumps across the Mediterranean. By his explanation, all Roman civilization was created by busy Jesuits in the 16th century yet we can find documents from Vindoland in Britain and Oxyrhynchus in Egypt discussing exactly these sources. How did the Jesuits know modern technology would allow us to read them? And how did they have access to Muslim Egypt and Protestant England anyway? And furthermore, what would be the point? Why create all of this useless information only to bury it forever in a place where it should have rotted away?
Fomenko's contempt for any field that isn't math or physics is overwhelming. His sections on architecture are masterpieces of arrogant disdain. For example he considers the Parthenon to be a Turkish mosque. The Parthenon is of course a masterpiece of Classical architecture and is lacking the traditional Muslim mosque design. Particularly the dome. Yes the roof was blown off, but they can still tell the structure of the thing from what remained. And what remains is remarkably similar to other temples traditionally labeled as Classical. I'm not kidding when I say he makes this claim based on no evidence either. His logic is that the Ancient Greeks never existed therefore this building cannot be Greek. He says that there was a Turkish tower on the Acropolis and therefore it must have been built there at the same time. His rather poor photo from the 1860s shows the tower right next to the temple of Athena Nike and it seems to be constructed of similar material to what is underneath it. By his reasoning this alone is enough to conclude that it was originally there when the temple was constructed.
His conclusion ignores the similarity of design between classical buildings and assumes that they are all more modern. The fact that there are buildings of similar design and function located throughout Europe is ignored. Why these buildings were all built, covered in Roman inscriptions, and then abandoned is left as something of a mystery. Or it would be if he mentioned it. Also missing is a discussion of artifacts and how some artifacts are found throughout the Mediterranean despite the highly different cultures that exist there. Why do Turkish buildings and artwork differ so much from Italian buildings and artwork if they were all the same a few hundred years ago when they built Classcal temples? And for that matter, why were they the same? Roman armor is especially strange since the only conclusion possible from his 'theory' is that everyone around the Mediterranean adopted Roman armor, sculpted and painted it (but only on Classically styled buildings), and then abandoned it without it ever having an effect on medieval armor and weaponry. This entire section is a blatant insult to the reader's intelligence and his own. And it gets worse.
When mentioning the dating of buildings he neglects to explain the layering. Specifically how one building is often built upon another. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the building on top is the newer building. Yet he would have us discard such obvious facts. Because when Classical buildings are found in a medieval city they are INVARIABLY found on the bottom. That's right, all those Classical buildings being built at the same time as medieval ones somehow all ended up on the bottom while their contemporaneous medieval ones ended up above them. Gosh, isn't that surprising?
And this is all in only book one. Of a dozen. Oh boy...
February 26, 2016
Most peculiar series! Revolutionary!
November 23, 2012
The worst case of cherry picking I´ve seen in a longtime. Its astronomical background it´s just wrong and does not support the thesis that he presents.
Currently reading
February 14, 2013'This is History in the Making'
Read
June 29, 2013The worst "historical" book published in Russia
February 12, 2025
I would like to write a review based on review to Mr. Ozymandias, Anatoly Fomenko, a mathematician with a distinguished career, has ventured into historical revisionism through his New Chronology, a series of works that apply mathematical and statistical tools to the study of history. Although his theories are highly controversial and frequently dismissed by mainstream historians, Fomenko's approach deserves a more nuanced critique than the derogatory dismissal exemplified in the your review provided. Your criticisms leveled against Fomenko's work rely on sarcasm, selective argumentation, and misrepresentation rather than a substantive engagement with his methodologies or ideas. Fomenko’s primary contribution is the application of statistical analysis and astronomy to historical records, particularly in dating ancient events. He employs methodologies such as:
Astronomical Dating: Using historical descriptions of celestial phenomena, such as solar and lunar eclipses, Fomenko attempts to recalibrate historical timelines.
Statistical Pattern Recognition: He analyzes patterns in textual data to identify duplications and inconsistencies in historical accounts.
Critical Examination of Primary Sources: Fomenko questions the reliability of medieval chronicles and highlights potential biases or anachronisms in their interpretations.
While these approaches are not free from criticism, they represent a scientific effort to reassess historical narratives. They demand rigorous scrutiny and debate, not outright dismissal.
The critique presented in your review fails to substantively engage with Fomenko’s methodologies. Instead, it relies heavily on ridicule, misrepresentation, and ad hominem attacks. Examples of these issues include:
Sarcastic Dismissal: Your critique consistently mocks Fomenko’s ideas without addressing their underlying rationale. For example, the conflation of the First Crusade and the Trojan War is ridiculed through selective comparisons, ignoring Fomenko’s broader arguments about the cyclical nature of historical narratives.
Misrepresentation of Claims: The text simplifies Fomenko’s hypothesis about the misdating of classical civilizations to a strawman argument, framing it as an absurd conspiracy rather than engaging with his evidence or reasoning.
Lack of Scholarly Engagement: Your critique does not cite or analyze Fomenko’s actual work in detail, instead summarizing his claims in a caricatured manner that undermines serious discussion.
Addressing Specific Misrepresentations - Astronomical Dating: Your critique dismisses Fomenko’s astronomical analysis as “cheating,” failing to explain why his eclipse-based dating methods are invalid or how they might be improved. Such dismissals ignore the potential for astronomy to serve as an objective tool in historical analysis.
Statistical Comparisons:
You are accuses Fomenko of “cherry-picking” data but does not substantiate this claim with examples of how his data selection is flawed. It also neglects to consider the broader implications of pattern recognition in uncovering inconsistencies in traditional chronology.
Language and Numerals:
Fomenko’s hypothesis about Roman numerals and their misinterpretation is reduced to a mockery without addressing the linguistic or paleographical evidence he cites. Such an approach fails to engage with the complexity of medieval manuscript traditions.
Architectural Analysis:
The text criticizes Fomenko’s reclassification of classical buildings as medieval but does not address the archaeological or material evidence he presents. Instead, it relies on rhetorical questions and incredulity as substitutes for argumentation.
Flaws in the Text’s Tone and Argumentation
Your review employs language that is overtly hostile and dismissive, undermining its credibility as a scholarly critique. Phrases like "piss-poor example" and sarcastic comparisons detract from the seriousness of the argument. Academic discourse requires measured critique based on evidence, not emotional invective or ridicule.
Why Fomenko’s Work Warrants Critical Engagement
While Fomenko’s conclusions may appear radical, they provoke valuable questions about the reliability of historical sources and the construction of historical narratives. His work challenges scholars to:
Reevaluate assumptions about historical continuity and chronology.
Explore interdisciplinary approaches to historical study, incorporating mathematics, astronomy, and textual criticism.
Recognize the potential for bias and error in the transmission of historical records.
Engaging with Fomenko’s work does not necessitate accepting his conclusions, but it does require addressing his arguments with intellectual rigor and respect. Dismissing him as a “nationalist conspiracy theorist” without examining the merits and flaws of his methodology fails to advance the discourse.
My Conclusion
Anatoly Fomenko’s New Chronology represents an unconventional but methodologically intriguing attempt to rethink history. The critique presented in your review does little to refute his ideas meaningfully, instead relying on sarcasm and misrepresentation. A more productive approach would involve engaging critically with Fomenko’s methodologies, identifying their strengths and weaknesses, and contributing to the broader dialogue about historical chronology.
PS: A Direct Note to You Ozymandias
If your approach to critique extends to the use of dismissive sarcasm and outright ridicule, I wonder how you would treat the works of Isaac Newton, who authored The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended. Newton, a figure of unparalleled intellectual achievement, also engaged in the reexamination of historical timelines, proposing revisions based on his interpretation of astronomical and historical evidence. Would you dare to apply the same derisive tone and mockery to his work as you have to Fomenko’s?
Newton's contributions to science, mathematics, and beyond are undeniable, but his forays into historical revisionism are a testament to the same spirit of inquiry that drove his other groundbreaking discoveries. Your critique here suggests a reluctance—or inability—to engage with challenging ideas on their own terms. This raises a question: do you possess the scholarly acumen to critique Newton with the same vigor, or is your disdain reserved selectively for those you perceive as more vulnerable to dismissal?
The irony is clear: by adopting a tone so far removed from scholarly discourse, you undermine your own credibility far more than Fomenko’s ideas could ever undermine the field of history. Constructive criticism, grounded in evidence and respect for intellectual dialogue, is the foundation of serious scholarship. Your choice of approach here is not only unbecoming but reveals a profound failure to meet that standard.
Czech version:
Rád bych napsal recenzi na základě recenze na pana Ozymandiase Anatolij Fomenko, matematik s vynikající kariérou, se pustil do historického revizionismu prostřednictvím své Nové chronologie, série prací, které aplikují matematické a statistické nástroje na studium historie. Ačkoli jsou jeho teorie velmi kontroverzní a mainstreamoví historici je často odmítají, Fomenkův přístup si zaslouží diferencovanější kritiku, než je hanlivé odmítnutí, jehož příkladem je vaše recenze. Vaše kritika Fomenkovy práce se opírá spíše o sarkasmus, selektivní argumentaci a zkreslování než o věcný přístup k jeho metodologii nebo myšlenkám. Fomenkovým hlavním přínosem je aplikace statistické analýzy a astronomie na historické záznamy, zejména při datování starověkých událostí. Používá přitom metodologie, jako např:
Astronomické datování: Pomocí historických popisů nebeských jevů, jako jsou zatmění Slunce a Měsíce, se Fomenko pokouší překalibrovat historické časové údaje.
Statistické rozpoznávání vzorů: Analyzuje vzory v textových datech, aby zjistil duplicity a nesrovnalosti v historických zprávách.
Kritické zkoumání primárních zdrojů: Fomenko zpochybňuje spolehlivost středověkých kronik a upozorňuje na možné zkreslení nebo anachronismus v jejich výkladech.
Ačkoli tyto přístupy nejsou prosty kritiky, představují vědecké úsilí o přehodnocení historických vyprávění. Vyžadují důsledné zkoumání a diskusi, nikoliv přímé odmítnutí.
Kritika uvedená ve vaší recenzi se Fomenkovými metodologiemi věcně nezabývá. Místo toho se do značné míry opírá o zesměšňování, zkreslování a útoky ad hominem. Mezi příklady těchto problémů patří:
Sarkastické odmítání: Vaše kritika důsledně zesměšňuje Fomenkovy myšlenky, aniž by se zabývala jejich základním zdůvodněním. Například spojování první křížové výpravy a trojské války je zesměšňováno selektivním srovnáváním, přičemž jsou ignorovány Fomenkovy širší argumenty o cyklické povaze historických vyprávění.
Zkreslení tvrzení: Text zjednodušuje Fomenkovu hypotézu o nesprávném datování klasických civilizací na argument slaměného panáka a rámuje ji jako absurdní konspiraci, místo aby se zabýval jeho důkazy nebo argumentací.
Nedostatek vědecké angažovanosti: Vaše kritika necituje ani podrobně neanalyzuje Fomenkovu skutečnou práci, místo toho shrnuje jeho tvrzení karikujícím způsobem, který podkopává seriózní diskusi.
Řešení konkrétních zkreslení - astronomické datování: Vaše kritika odmítá Fomenkovu astronomickou analýzu jako „podvod“ a nevysvětluje, proč jsou jeho metody datování založené na zatmění neplatné nebo jak by mohly být vylepšeny. Takové odmítnutí ignoruje potenciál astronomie sloužit jako objektivní nástroj historické analýzy.
Statistická srovnání:
Fomenko je obviňován z „cherry-picking“ dat, ale nedokládá toto tvrzení příklady toho, jak je jeho výběr dat chybný. Rovněž opomíjí širší důsledky rozpoznávání vzorců při odhalování nesrovnalostí v tradiční chronologii.
Jazyk a číslovky:
Fomenkova hypotéza o římských číslicích a jejich nesprávném výkladu je redukována na výsměch, aniž by se zabývala lingvistickými nebo paleografickými důkazy, které uvádí. Takový přístup se nezabývá složitostí středověkých rukopisných tradic.
Architektonická analýza:
Text kritizuje Fomenkovu reklasifikaci klasických staveb na středověké, ale nezabývá se archeologickými nebo hmotnými důkazy, které předkládá. Místo toho se spoléhá na rétorické otázky a nedůvěru, které nahrazují argumentaci.
Chyby v tónu a argumentaci textu
Vaše recenze používá jazyk, který je otevřeně nepřátelský a odmítavý, což podkopává její důvěryhodnost jako vědecké kritiky. Fráze jako „vyčůraný příklad“ a sarkastická přirovnání snižují vážnost argumentu. Akademický diskurz vyžaduje uvážlivou kritiku založenou na důkazech, nikoliv emocionální invektivy nebo zesměšňování.
Proč si Fomenkova práce zaslouží kritický přístup?
Ačkoli se Fomenkovy závěry mohou zdát radikální, vyvolávají cenné otázky o spolehlivosti historických pramenů a konstrukci historických vyprávění. Jeho práce je výzvou pro vědce, aby:
přehodnotit předpoklady o historické kontinuitě a chronologii.
Prozkoumali interdisciplinární přístupy k historickému studiu, zahrnující matematiku, astronomii a textovou kritiku.
Uvědomit si možnost zkreslení a chyb při předávání historických záznamů.
Zabývat se Fomenkovou prací neznamená nutnost přijmout jeho závěry, ale vyžaduje, aby se jeho argumenty zabývaly s intelektuální přísností a respektem. Odmítání jeho výroků jako „nacionalistického konspiračního teoretika“ bez zkoumání předností a nedostatků jeho metodologie nepřispívá k rozvoji diskurzu.
Můj závěr
Kniha Anatolije Fomenka Nová chronologie představuje nekonvenční, ale metodologicky zajímavý pokus o nové promýšlení historie. Kritika uvedená ve vaší recenzi se příliš nesnaží smysluplně vyvrátit jeho myšlenky, místo toho se spoléhá na sarkasmus a zkreslování. Produktivnější přístup by zahrnoval kritické zapojení do Fomenkovy metodologie, identifikaci jejích silných a slabých stránek a přispění k širšímu dialogu o historické chronologii.
PS: Přímá poznámka pro vás, Ozymandias.
Pokud se váš přístup ke kritice rozšiřuje na používání pohrdavého sarkasmu a přímého zesměšňování, zajímalo by mě, jak byste se choval k pracím Isaaca Newtona, který je autorem knihy The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended. Newton, osobnost s nedostižnými intelektuálními úspěchy, se rovněž zabýval přehodnocováním historických časových os a navrhoval revize na základě své interpretace astronomických a historických důkazů. Odvážil byste se na jeho práci použít stejný posměšný tón a výsměch jako na Fomenkovu?
Newtonův přínos vědě, matematice a dalším oborům je nepopiratelný, ale jeho výpady do historického revizionismu svědčí o stejném badatelském duchu, který byl hnacím motorem jeho dalších převratných objevů. Vaše kritika naznačuje neochotu - nebo neschopnost - zabývat se náročnými myšlenkami za jejich vlastních podmínek. To vyvolává otázku: máte dostatečnou vědeckou erudici, abyste mohl Newtona kritizovat se stejnou razancí, nebo je vaše opovržení vyhrazeno selektivně těm, které považujete za náchylnější k odmítnutí?
Ironie je zřejmá: tím, že zaujímáte tón tak vzdálený vědeckému diskurzu, podkopáváte svou vlastní důvěryhodnost mnohem více, než by kdy Fomenkovy myšlenky mohly podkopat obor historie. Konstruktivní kritika, založená na důkazech a respektu k intelektuálnímu dialogu, je základem seriózní vědy. Váš přístup zde je nejen nevhodný, ale prozrazuje i hluboké selhání v plnění tohoto standardu.
Astronomical Dating: Using historical descriptions of celestial phenomena, such as solar and lunar eclipses, Fomenko attempts to recalibrate historical timelines.
Statistical Pattern Recognition: He analyzes patterns in textual data to identify duplications and inconsistencies in historical accounts.
Critical Examination of Primary Sources: Fomenko questions the reliability of medieval chronicles and highlights potential biases or anachronisms in their interpretations.
While these approaches are not free from criticism, they represent a scientific effort to reassess historical narratives. They demand rigorous scrutiny and debate, not outright dismissal.
The critique presented in your review fails to substantively engage with Fomenko’s methodologies. Instead, it relies heavily on ridicule, misrepresentation, and ad hominem attacks. Examples of these issues include:
Sarcastic Dismissal: Your critique consistently mocks Fomenko’s ideas without addressing their underlying rationale. For example, the conflation of the First Crusade and the Trojan War is ridiculed through selective comparisons, ignoring Fomenko’s broader arguments about the cyclical nature of historical narratives.
Misrepresentation of Claims: The text simplifies Fomenko’s hypothesis about the misdating of classical civilizations to a strawman argument, framing it as an absurd conspiracy rather than engaging with his evidence or reasoning.
Lack of Scholarly Engagement: Your critique does not cite or analyze Fomenko’s actual work in detail, instead summarizing his claims in a caricatured manner that undermines serious discussion.
Addressing Specific Misrepresentations - Astronomical Dating: Your critique dismisses Fomenko’s astronomical analysis as “cheating,” failing to explain why his eclipse-based dating methods are invalid or how they might be improved. Such dismissals ignore the potential for astronomy to serve as an objective tool in historical analysis.
Statistical Comparisons:
You are accuses Fomenko of “cherry-picking” data but does not substantiate this claim with examples of how his data selection is flawed. It also neglects to consider the broader implications of pattern recognition in uncovering inconsistencies in traditional chronology.
Language and Numerals:
Fomenko’s hypothesis about Roman numerals and their misinterpretation is reduced to a mockery without addressing the linguistic or paleographical evidence he cites. Such an approach fails to engage with the complexity of medieval manuscript traditions.
Architectural Analysis:
The text criticizes Fomenko’s reclassification of classical buildings as medieval but does not address the archaeological or material evidence he presents. Instead, it relies on rhetorical questions and incredulity as substitutes for argumentation.
Flaws in the Text’s Tone and Argumentation
Your review employs language that is overtly hostile and dismissive, undermining its credibility as a scholarly critique. Phrases like "piss-poor example" and sarcastic comparisons detract from the seriousness of the argument. Academic discourse requires measured critique based on evidence, not emotional invective or ridicule.
Why Fomenko’s Work Warrants Critical Engagement
While Fomenko’s conclusions may appear radical, they provoke valuable questions about the reliability of historical sources and the construction of historical narratives. His work challenges scholars to:
Reevaluate assumptions about historical continuity and chronology.
Explore interdisciplinary approaches to historical study, incorporating mathematics, astronomy, and textual criticism.
Recognize the potential for bias and error in the transmission of historical records.
Engaging with Fomenko’s work does not necessitate accepting his conclusions, but it does require addressing his arguments with intellectual rigor and respect. Dismissing him as a “nationalist conspiracy theorist” without examining the merits and flaws of his methodology fails to advance the discourse.
My Conclusion
Anatoly Fomenko’s New Chronology represents an unconventional but methodologically intriguing attempt to rethink history. The critique presented in your review does little to refute his ideas meaningfully, instead relying on sarcasm and misrepresentation. A more productive approach would involve engaging critically with Fomenko’s methodologies, identifying their strengths and weaknesses, and contributing to the broader dialogue about historical chronology.
PS: A Direct Note to You Ozymandias
If your approach to critique extends to the use of dismissive sarcasm and outright ridicule, I wonder how you would treat the works of Isaac Newton, who authored The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended. Newton, a figure of unparalleled intellectual achievement, also engaged in the reexamination of historical timelines, proposing revisions based on his interpretation of astronomical and historical evidence. Would you dare to apply the same derisive tone and mockery to his work as you have to Fomenko’s?
Newton's contributions to science, mathematics, and beyond are undeniable, but his forays into historical revisionism are a testament to the same spirit of inquiry that drove his other groundbreaking discoveries. Your critique here suggests a reluctance—or inability—to engage with challenging ideas on their own terms. This raises a question: do you possess the scholarly acumen to critique Newton with the same vigor, or is your disdain reserved selectively for those you perceive as more vulnerable to dismissal?
The irony is clear: by adopting a tone so far removed from scholarly discourse, you undermine your own credibility far more than Fomenko’s ideas could ever undermine the field of history. Constructive criticism, grounded in evidence and respect for intellectual dialogue, is the foundation of serious scholarship. Your choice of approach here is not only unbecoming but reveals a profound failure to meet that standard.
Czech version:
Rád bych napsal recenzi na základě recenze na pana Ozymandiase Anatolij Fomenko, matematik s vynikající kariérou, se pustil do historického revizionismu prostřednictvím své Nové chronologie, série prací, které aplikují matematické a statistické nástroje na studium historie. Ačkoli jsou jeho teorie velmi kontroverzní a mainstreamoví historici je často odmítají, Fomenkův přístup si zaslouží diferencovanější kritiku, než je hanlivé odmítnutí, jehož příkladem je vaše recenze. Vaše kritika Fomenkovy práce se opírá spíše o sarkasmus, selektivní argumentaci a zkreslování než o věcný přístup k jeho metodologii nebo myšlenkám. Fomenkovým hlavním přínosem je aplikace statistické analýzy a astronomie na historické záznamy, zejména při datování starověkých událostí. Používá přitom metodologie, jako např:
Astronomické datování: Pomocí historických popisů nebeských jevů, jako jsou zatmění Slunce a Měsíce, se Fomenko pokouší překalibrovat historické časové údaje.
Statistické rozpoznávání vzorů: Analyzuje vzory v textových datech, aby zjistil duplicity a nesrovnalosti v historických zprávách.
Kritické zkoumání primárních zdrojů: Fomenko zpochybňuje spolehlivost středověkých kronik a upozorňuje na možné zkreslení nebo anachronismus v jejich výkladech.
Ačkoli tyto přístupy nejsou prosty kritiky, představují vědecké úsilí o přehodnocení historických vyprávění. Vyžadují důsledné zkoumání a diskusi, nikoliv přímé odmítnutí.
Kritika uvedená ve vaší recenzi se Fomenkovými metodologiemi věcně nezabývá. Místo toho se do značné míry opírá o zesměšňování, zkreslování a útoky ad hominem. Mezi příklady těchto problémů patří:
Sarkastické odmítání: Vaše kritika důsledně zesměšňuje Fomenkovy myšlenky, aniž by se zabývala jejich základním zdůvodněním. Například spojování první křížové výpravy a trojské války je zesměšňováno selektivním srovnáváním, přičemž jsou ignorovány Fomenkovy širší argumenty o cyklické povaze historických vyprávění.
Zkreslení tvrzení: Text zjednodušuje Fomenkovu hypotézu o nesprávném datování klasických civilizací na argument slaměného panáka a rámuje ji jako absurdní konspiraci, místo aby se zabýval jeho důkazy nebo argumentací.
Nedostatek vědecké angažovanosti: Vaše kritika necituje ani podrobně neanalyzuje Fomenkovu skutečnou práci, místo toho shrnuje jeho tvrzení karikujícím způsobem, který podkopává seriózní diskusi.
Řešení konkrétních zkreslení - astronomické datování: Vaše kritika odmítá Fomenkovu astronomickou analýzu jako „podvod“ a nevysvětluje, proč jsou jeho metody datování založené na zatmění neplatné nebo jak by mohly být vylepšeny. Takové odmítnutí ignoruje potenciál astronomie sloužit jako objektivní nástroj historické analýzy.
Statistická srovnání:
Fomenko je obviňován z „cherry-picking“ dat, ale nedokládá toto tvrzení příklady toho, jak je jeho výběr dat chybný. Rovněž opomíjí širší důsledky rozpoznávání vzorců při odhalování nesrovnalostí v tradiční chronologii.
Jazyk a číslovky:
Fomenkova hypotéza o římských číslicích a jejich nesprávném výkladu je redukována na výsměch, aniž by se zabývala lingvistickými nebo paleografickými důkazy, které uvádí. Takový přístup se nezabývá složitostí středověkých rukopisných tradic.
Architektonická analýza:
Text kritizuje Fomenkovu reklasifikaci klasických staveb na středověké, ale nezabývá se archeologickými nebo hmotnými důkazy, které předkládá. Místo toho se spoléhá na rétorické otázky a nedůvěru, které nahrazují argumentaci.
Chyby v tónu a argumentaci textu
Vaše recenze používá jazyk, který je otevřeně nepřátelský a odmítavý, což podkopává její důvěryhodnost jako vědecké kritiky. Fráze jako „vyčůraný příklad“ a sarkastická přirovnání snižují vážnost argumentu. Akademický diskurz vyžaduje uvážlivou kritiku založenou na důkazech, nikoliv emocionální invektivy nebo zesměšňování.
Proč si Fomenkova práce zaslouží kritický přístup?
Ačkoli se Fomenkovy závěry mohou zdát radikální, vyvolávají cenné otázky o spolehlivosti historických pramenů a konstrukci historických vyprávění. Jeho práce je výzvou pro vědce, aby:
přehodnotit předpoklady o historické kontinuitě a chronologii.
Prozkoumali interdisciplinární přístupy k historickému studiu, zahrnující matematiku, astronomii a textovou kritiku.
Uvědomit si možnost zkreslení a chyb při předávání historických záznamů.
Zabývat se Fomenkovou prací neznamená nutnost přijmout jeho závěry, ale vyžaduje, aby se jeho argumenty zabývaly s intelektuální přísností a respektem. Odmítání jeho výroků jako „nacionalistického konspiračního teoretika“ bez zkoumání předností a nedostatků jeho metodologie nepřispívá k rozvoji diskurzu.
Můj závěr
Kniha Anatolije Fomenka Nová chronologie představuje nekonvenční, ale metodologicky zajímavý pokus o nové promýšlení historie. Kritika uvedená ve vaší recenzi se příliš nesnaží smysluplně vyvrátit jeho myšlenky, místo toho se spoléhá na sarkasmus a zkreslování. Produktivnější přístup by zahrnoval kritické zapojení do Fomenkovy metodologie, identifikaci jejích silných a slabých stránek a přispění k širšímu dialogu o historické chronologii.
PS: Přímá poznámka pro vás, Ozymandias.
Pokud se váš přístup ke kritice rozšiřuje na používání pohrdavého sarkasmu a přímého zesměšňování, zajímalo by mě, jak byste se choval k pracím Isaaca Newtona, který je autorem knihy The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended. Newton, osobnost s nedostižnými intelektuálními úspěchy, se rovněž zabýval přehodnocováním historických časových os a navrhoval revize na základě své interpretace astronomických a historických důkazů. Odvážil byste se na jeho práci použít stejný posměšný tón a výsměch jako na Fomenkovu?
Newtonův přínos vědě, matematice a dalším oborům je nepopiratelný, ale jeho výpady do historického revizionismu svědčí o stejném badatelském duchu, který byl hnacím motorem jeho dalších převratných objevů. Vaše kritika naznačuje neochotu - nebo neschopnost - zabývat se náročnými myšlenkami za jejich vlastních podmínek. To vyvolává otázku: máte dostatečnou vědeckou erudici, abyste mohl Newtona kritizovat se stejnou razancí, nebo je vaše opovržení vyhrazeno selektivně těm, které považujete za náchylnější k odmítnutí?
Ironie je zřejmá: tím, že zaujímáte tón tak vzdálený vědeckému diskurzu, podkopáváte svou vlastní důvěryhodnost mnohem více, než by kdy Fomenkovy myšlenky mohly podkopat obor historie. Konstruktivní kritika, založená na důkazech a respektu k intelektuálnímu dialogu, je základem seriózní vědy. Váš přístup zde je nejen nevhodný, ale prozrazuje i hluboké selhání v plnění tohoto standardu.
November 13, 2022
I am really astounded.
never-ever
May 3, 2025After last weekend was spent reading how viruses don't actually exist and it's all just the resonance of 5G towers, this weekend my mom has dived headfirst into this series. I tend to come to Goodreads first to read both positive and negative reviews of a book so I know what's up, and boy howdy do the negative reviews on this series show a totally different picture from how she presented it to me. This one, I think, is my favorite.
Read
June 21, 2022Oh boy Oh boy, I read a lot of this guys work because am a masochist like at. I have never seen such blatant misuse of statistics look alike folk etymologys and cultural chauvinism, But hey you can fool a lot of people if you wow them with complex looking math and provide them a feel good narrative to avoid the fact that Russia is a shithole and has been for a very long time,
Read
January 24, 2023Does not use any sciences as we no them ,things like time and dna ,,or burial site ,,or even for that matter great geography ,,,this book just misdirects you toward beliefs...What we gone do !!!
September 2, 2024
Reads like a detective novel. Fascinating and mind-boggling. On the road to the truth, like Deep Throat said, "Follow the money." But in this case it is more like, "Follow the math." Also, Fomenko uses 7 different methods for zeroing in on chronological dates, and it is quite interesting to note that despite using diverse dating methods, the results are in agreement with one another.
August 25, 2007
i think that science is more better than fiction,"(some times)".but about that story: iam sure that fiction is better.
Want to read
February 18, 2012I've read his paper on the anomaly of a parameter in the moons orbit ( assuming an uncorrected calendar) - curious if any astronomer has critiqued his argument.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews